Queen seeks injunction

The Queen this afternoon took High Court action to stop the newspaper which sparked the worst royal security breach ever from publishing further revelations.

In a rare move, the royal household was seeking to restrain the Daily Mirror and journalist Ryan Parry from publishing further behind-the-scenes details of Palace life.

On two successive days the Mirror has published "what the footman saw" stories and pictures, and claimed its infiltration of the Palace and Windsor Castle represented a worrying breach of security in the run-up to the current US State visit by President George Bush.

Although not unprecedented - in 1990 the Palace took similar court action - the legal move is seen as a last resort. Aides are anxious to prevent any further embarrassing intrusions into the privacy of the Royal Family.

As the Queen cannot take action in her own courts - there can be no Regina vs Regina or Crown vs Crown - the action was being taken in the name of the Attorney General, the Government's senior law officer.

No application was being made for the court hearing in the Chancery Division to be in private as the Palace was keen for the issue of Palace security to be aired in public.

The action was being based on the alleged breach of contract by Parry who signed a confidentiality agreement when starting work for the Queen.

A Palace spokeswoman confirmed the story reported in earlier editions of the Evening Standard that the royal household is taking proceedings against the

Daily Mirror and Parry for breach of contract. She said: "We will be asking the High Court to restrain the newspaper and Mr Parry from further publication of information in breach of the duty of confidentiality he owes his former employer."

The Queen is furious at what she regards as a gross intrusion of her privacy and Parry's disregard for confidentiality.

David Pannick QC representing the Attorney General told the court: "Neither the Attorney nor Her Majesty have any wish to stifle discussion about the adequacy of security arrangements at Buckingham Palace, at Windsor Castle or anywhere else. But it is plain that the articles go far beyond any such material."

Mr Pannick said an injunction was also being sought because the Mirror editor had failed to give an undertaking not to publish more material.

Editor Piers Morgan has said he would defend any action on the grounds that the exposé was in the public interest.